The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

1401. Comment #68352 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 12:40 am

Goldy:

Anyway, if we had an original copy of the prophesy, not something handed down over the generations, then we'd see what Ezekiel meant.

But we do. You repeat a frequently expressed but incorrect idea, that the Bible text has been corrupted over such a long sequence of copying. It has not. When I was in Israel I visited the "shrine of the book", in which are displayed parts of the Dead Sea scrolls. The Bible texts included amongst those documents, though dating from before Jesus' day, say the same things, using the same words, as the Hebrew Bible text we have today, though the latter came by repeated copying, and the earliest known extant example of it is only about 1000 years old.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1402. Comment #68353 by Quetzalcoatl on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 am

Mark-

my apologies. I read that post but I completely forgot! Let us know when the paper's done, and I'll be happy to PM my details to you.

I was going to comment about the stars, but the others have beaten me to it. I'll look again at the Tyre photos as well, when I have a moment.

Billy-

I'm not surprised that the HAMster (just trying it out) took liberties with the truth. I've got to say it really does irritate me when I read about creationists saying that atheists are immoral because we don't believe in God.

We did win the football match!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1403. Comment #68362 by irate_atheist on September 7, 2007 at 2:23 am

Mark (#68351) -

Ezekiel could have meant something entirely different, but how one reinteprets 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:4-5)' to mean 'I'm all loving and forgiving', I for one do not know.

But as there's no god anyway, and, like every religite before and since, Ezekiel was making it all up, what difference does it make?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1404. Comment #68370 by epeeist on September 7, 2007 at 2:52 am

Comment #68271 by BillySands

Interesting about changing the laws of physics. So much for the fine tuned hypothesis.

Yet again the creationists don't consider the consequences - see http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm which is entitled "Were Adam and Eve Toast". Briefly he calculates that temperature increases would be on the order of 65,000 Celsius/Km. In other words the earth would be molten at the time of creation if this were some 6,000 years ago.

See also http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/plate4.htm which gives some more data.

Besides your tree rings you might also want to look at some references to the varves in lake Suigetsu. If you google for them then use the "Scholar" search rather than the normal one which gives you some creationist sites.

Other Comments by epeeist

1405. Comment #68375 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 3:16 am

Hi Epeeist,

Loved the picture of the monkey spanking the creationist.

Ham also mentioned a fossil spark plug as evidence of a young earth. debunked here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html
It just gets wierder and wierder

Other Comments by BillySands

1406. Comment #68376 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 3:19 am

In the context of cosmology and origins, he is making exactly the same mistake, in characterising all possible universes and their natures as being bounded in accordance to his entirely human-defined concepts of what a God could or could not do in making one.

As I have mentioned before - this is not a mistake, it is an entirely reasonable approach. The mistake is made by the those who claim aspects of God and what he can do that are beyond human-defined concepts: that is extremely flawed logic. Assuming there is a God, the only way we can experience Him is via our limited human minds. If there were any aspects of God that were beyond what we could imagine, then by definition we could have no knowledge of them, and so it is futile to discuss them: it is moving into invisible pink unicorn territory.

If you disagree, perhaps you could give us a description of an aspect of God that is beyond anything humans could conceive?

Do you see the paradox - the flaw in this argument?

Other Comments by steve99

1407. Comment #68381 by steveroot on September 7, 2007 at 3:36 am

1559. Comment #68375 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 3:16 am
Hi Epeeist,

Loved the picture of the monkey spanking the creationist.

Ham also mentioned a fossil spark plug as evidence of a young earth.
It just gets wierder and wierder

What? You doubt the evidence of fossilized tire tracks and human footprints- proving that early man and automobiles co-existed? It is certain that man rode in cars.
And I thought it was creationists who liked to spank the monkey!;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

1408. Comment #68386 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 3:55 am

Hi Quetzalcoatl,

I was going to comment about the stars, but the others have beaten me to it.

No going to stop me… I wrote this rubbish today, and so I will post it.

Mark asked:-

But have you never asked yourself - given your standpoint (I presume) that evolution by natural selection is the reason why living things have the properties they do - why:
...
(f) and all that despite the fact that, apart from casting tiny amounts of light on us at night, the stars do not interact with us in any meaningful way, at the level of our day-to-day lives?

I chose the last one because Billy and others have tackled the biology side to the earlier points. Have to admit thought; I'm not sure what point is being made this last one?

This is my 2nd attempt at writing this, my first "response" was (a rather lengthy one of course) but I realised that I am answering the wrong question.

"Of course" I can answer How the stars were formed, and How they have been useful for man (calendar/seasons/navigation etc) and that other life forms could use them for similar reasons.

So Mark, are you saying that that stars have no use? (Just a little light in the night sky?)

You would be wrong on two levels if you did.

Firstly, the stars are a requirement for our existence - not just for life, but planet Earth as well (OK - some believe God did it all with a click of His Mighty fingers) however the whole scientific community are in agreement. (I've gone into this already a little - if anyone wants another lesson on stellar evolution please ask. My last rant on it I think was post 1470.)


Secondly, in our "day to day" lives stars have been very useful (I use past tense because man's technology has reduced the need for stars for such things today.)

The 1st point is a requirement - we have no choice in this, if it did not work this way, if we did not have stars going supernova then we do not have planets and life in the universe.
(Unless of course you believe in the unproven "Magic Man" theory - no explanation to who made this Magic Man or if he actually did any of the "magic tricks" attributed to him. Without ANY evidence, I doubt the Magic Man even exists - although, this could be his greatest trick!!! Prove me wrong)

The 2nd point seems to be a by-product. Life can make use the stars from this distance, but that is not their reason or purpose, if they were not there, life would have done it a different way (or not at all)

However, this is not as important as to answer why?

So I have just answered the wrong question... D'oh
(At least I edited down a lot from my first attempt. I have just answered this question/point of yours Mark the wrong way round. (In my opinion)

I do not have to explain WHY the stars are there, or WHY they are useful. I can explain the "How" scientifically on both points. (Just did briefly)

It is religion that is suppose to answer the WHY questions (so I am told)... so these why questions are the "amazing" facts I do not have to explain - the one that you Mark have seemly re-directed us away while answering Newatheist.

(The "why"" the universe is so old, so large - just "falls out" of the equations - it is as it is, because Physics is as it is, we observe it this way because we need physics this way to be asking the questions... erm the anthropic principle I think it is called.

So for the religious out there...

WHY did God created all these stars... Why did God create billion of stars thousands, millions, billions of light years away?
Why, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, did God create such a HUGE universe at all? How can starlight from these great distances be explained in the 6,000-year-old model of the Earth?

Mark, you are able to ask your question to Newatheist - but you do not ask the same type of questions to yourself?
Try it... explain why the universe "looks" the way it does - why so large... why it "appears" so old... Why is the sun a PopulationI star i.e. more than one star needed to live, evolve and go supernova before the sun could form? (Details "Summarised" in my post 1470) (This formed part of the summary post 1502 on the previous page)

Science answers the HOW rather well (not complete - not even close I admit on some points) far better than any religious answer I have heard.

Yet religions make two claims - not only can they answer the How, they can answer the WHY?

Go for it... answer any physical object in greater detail than physics can. I will taken an example, lets try something close to home:

The Sun.
Explain: How the Sun came into existence ?
Religious Answer?: God did it!
How: Magic...
Explain: Why the Sun appears the way it does?
Religious Answer?: Because - we cannot question the reasons of God.
Why: Isn't the Sun "pure", "perfect", a first generation star of only Hydrogen and Helium. Why did more than 2 stars have to go supernova before our Sun was formed? Why did God need to create and exploded many stars before our own could form?
Religious Answer?: God's will.

Conclusion: Religion is very poor explaining the HOW, and it creates more WHY questions.

Just an opinion…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1409. Comment #68392 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:03 am

Hi JC

Great comments as always, I'll add them to my summary post next time - glad you are back BTW, I got worried you found God or something (Just kidding)

As usual, the thread goes silent for awhile and suddenly there are 50-100 posts to catch up on. :)

Erm... probably 50% those posts (and about 75% of the rubbish written) is from me... sorry.

I can summarise my stuff for you.

"It is just Lee having a rant... long boring rant" - I'm trying to quit.

There are many specific claims that Christians make with respect to the alleged design of the universe, and more than a few can be looked at scientifically. Victor Stenger does a fine (albeit imperfect) job of this in God: The Failed Hypothesis, which treats the "God hypothesis" most frequently offered by adherents to the Abrahamic faiths as a scientifically testable proposition.

This book is on its way to me now... cannot wait.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1410. Comment #68395 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:07 am

Hi Philip,

I am no science know-it-all but I am under the impression dating requires not just one test but several before people will authenticate it!

There are many ways of dating the Earth and the universe... Everyone shows a much older Earth and Universe than 10,000 years. Even if one of them proved wrong - there are many more out there.

If you want to know some of the physics behind it, just ask (I will see what I can make up).
However, the logic, reasoning and evidence has not worked against a creationist that I know of yet. (mind closed to new ideas maybe?)

You could take a look at our little "age" debate on this very thread if you like at to see more of the ideas of the threaders here (Another plug the summary once again - plus more importantly, it saves me writing out more rubbish)

1395/1396
Question: How old is the Earth and the Universe? Is the Earth 4.5 Billion years old or only 6,000 years?

Have to go…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1411. Comment #68398 by epeeist on September 7, 2007 at 4:22 am

Comment #68395 by LeeC

There are many ways of dating the Earth and the universe... Everyone shows a much older Earth and Universe than 10,000 years. Even if one of them proved wrong - there are many more out there.

And the word that you should look up to go along with this is "consilience". Do the dating methods agree with one another or not?

Other Comments by epeeist

1412. Comment #68402 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 4:38 am

Billy:

the oldest tree in the world is older than the date of the flood

But that is not inconsistent with the Bible account! According to the detail in Genesis 8:11, at least one tree (and presumably in fact, many trees) survived the flood...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1413. Comment #68404 by irate_atheist on September 7, 2007 at 4:59 am

Mark -

How do you cling on to your irrational beliefs?

And, perhaps even more importantly, why?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1414. Comment #68409 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 5:08 am

irate_atheist:

Ezekiel could have meant something entirely different, but how one reinteprets 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:4-5)' to mean 'I'm all loving and forgiving', I for one do not know.

You see a problem where there is none.

God loved Israel, because of the faith of their progenitors; he made a covenant with them, which they on their side voluntarily agreed to. He is therefore in spiritual terms their husband (see Jeremiah 31:32), and justified in his jealousy over the people and concerned for their faithfulness to him, in the terms you quote from Exodus 20.

When they turned away to other so-called gods, as happened repeatedly, he did not instantly punish them by death (though that would have been quite within the terms of the covenant), but appealed to them by his prophets to return, yet warning of the consequences of remaining in their estranged state. He showed his anger at their sins by bringing punishment upon them, not out of spite, but specifically in order to convince them of their error and bring them back. When they, either as a nation, or at an individual level, recognised their error and repented, seeking forgiveness, he willingly accepted them.

Thus Yahweh shows his love and mercy and forgiveness towards his people (those who have made a covenant with him, both Jews and believing Gentiles). These characteristics are in no way incompatible with his jealousy and righteous anger, as you suggest. All you need to do is consider the context of individual application, for each of the attributes we are talking about: God is not simultaneously indignant and forgiving, towards any one individual. Rather, he shows the different aspects of his character to each person, precisely in accordance with their attitude towards him. See Romans 11:22 and its context.

(Bible references available on request, supporting all aspects of the above summary.)

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1415. Comment #68410 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 5:13 am

How do you cling on to your irrational beliefs?

Show me in what way any particular specific element of my beliefs really is irrational, and I will try to answer your question...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1416. Comment #68414 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 5:34 am

Steve99:

As I have mentioned before - this is not a mistake, it is an entirely reasonable approach. The mistake is made by the those who claim aspects of God and what he can do that are beyond human-defined concepts: that is extremely flawed logic. Assuming there is a God, the only way we can experience Him is via our limited human minds. If there were any aspects of God that were beyond what we could imagine, then by definition we could have no knowledge of them, and so it is futile to discuss them: it is moving into invisible pink unicorn territory.

If you disagree, perhaps you could give us a description of an aspect of God that is beyond anything humans could conceive?

Do you see the paradox - the flaw in this argument?

I certainly see the problem you face; you are correct that if the Bible is merely another human book, then we are trapped in just the problem you describe with respect to discussing an infinite God.

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to. We are, painfully, limited by our own human inclinations and traditions in our response to that message: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" (1 Cor 2:14). Nonetheless those who are prepared to consider it seriously find - as I do, continually - that the more one submits oneself to the principles it teaches, being willing to accept it for what it claims to be, the more it substantiates itself as being true, and the more the evidence of this world of ours and its present condition, both in the large and in very small details, is found to match with precision both the Bible's overall characterisation of things, and its many individual predictions.

(Sorry, I realise that last is a very long sentence - hope you get the point, regardless!)

As one contributor here, though mockingly, said of me: yes I do believe it, I really do.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1417. Comment #68415 by irate_atheist on September 7, 2007 at 5:36 am

"These characteristics are in no way incompatible with his jealousy and righteous anger, as you suggest."

So he is jealous then? And of gods that he must, by definition, know not to exist? Huh? He doesn't sound so smart to me. Petulant, petty, pitiful and pathetic more like it.

Irrational - Your belief in (and increasingly adsurd defense of) the occurence of a global flood 6,000 years ago for which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. Your definite belief that a man (who you never even met) rose from the dead 2000 years ago. The list could go on and on until I wear out my keyboard.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1418. Comment #68417 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 5:56 am

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to.

But that is what Dawkins discusses - the nature of the supposed communication from God.

If you want to participate in discussion, all you can discuss is the evidence or otherwise for that supposed infinite power and knowledge. You can't take the infinite power and knowledge as given as a matter for debate (even if you personally believe in it).

Your argument is as follows:

You: Dawkins... you fail to take into account the aspects of god that we can never understand.
Dawkins: What aspects? Describe them to me.
You: I can't, as we can never understand them. So there! I win!

If theists are going to claim that to dismiss God, atheists have to have a perfect understanding of God's supposed infinite power and knowledge, then that is intellectually dishonest. It is entirely fair for the atheist to respond that to justify God, a theist must also claim such understanding.

Other Comments by steve99

1419. Comment #68442 by newatheist on September 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

Mark
I'm delighted and surprised you responded to my rant. You sure take a lot on.

Wow! You got quite lyrical there, didn't you?!

Thanks for the compliment!

Others have put forward their ideas about your questions (a through f), and I'm grateful for that
because maybe I'd have only answered you by saying that to a large extent I didn't know.
Nice questions. Ah the complexities of the human mind. You won't be surpised to read I haven't seen anything to suggest that
"God did it", though. Or that the answers aren't purely scientific or natural(istic). Sure enough, just read the responses
above.

By the way the sand vs stars analogy was made in a documentary I watched last week.

Anyway thanks for the quiz, now can you answer the questions I (indirectly) put to you?

Fully bearing in mind the numbers, why does the almighty creator of the universe want this little speck in all of the cosmos for his "kingdom?"
And how can you not think that idea is not just absurd?

Actually, maybe I won't ask you why God built a whole city so he could have microbes on a speck of dust
wedged under the skirting board behind a chair in the back room of one of the granny flats of one the houses,
or why he wants to "shack up" with said microbes. You could just as easily argue (as I think you already have) "Well he's God.
Just because our little human brains wouldn't do it that way doesn't mean his method isn't beyond our understanding..." etc.

The question should probably be (as this is your area), where are the answers to this question in the Bible?
What does God say through his prophets to help us "post biblical" types, with questions about
the scale of the universe, and why it's so freaking disproportionate to his whole stated purpose?
(i.e. setting up his "kingdom" on one of a likely billion or more life supporting planets.)
He must surely have known we'd reach this level of knowledge and questioning. Seems he might have slipped a little
something into the volumes among the bits about certain cities that existed in pre biblical times being attacked by
"someone or other, at sometime or other".

By the way your post 1570 seems to say "the Bible is as true as you make it, and totally believable if you want to
believe it". Nice.

Steve - comment 1572 - fantastic!

Other Comments by newatheist

1420. Comment #68462 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 8:05 am

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God,...

The quote above is another of those fascinating ideas that Christians would have us accept as true. In effect, we are expected to believe that some 2000 years ago God, as his own son, lived and walked among us for 30 odd years. He also made regular appearances to other assorted characters throughout the preceding centuries in various guises, like burning bushes, etc. The strange thing is that since then, he has not made a lengthy visit or even just a pop in for coffee to us "post Biblical types" (nicely put newatheist!).

Why not? Are we not as worthy as the erstwhile denizens of the middle east?

Other Comments by SRWB

1421. Comment #68474 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 8:26 am

Hi epeeist,

epeeist wrote : Post 1565. Comment #68398

And the word that you should look up to go along with this is "consilience". Do the dating methods agree with one another or not?

Erm... thanks. Words was never my strong point... so time to hit the 'net.

The word consilience was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." The Scientific method has become almost universally accepted as the exclusive method for testing the status of any scientific hypothesis or theory. "Inductions" which arise out of applications of the scientific method are, by definition, the only accepted indicators of consilience.
Wikipedia

Well - every dating method I know agrees the universe is older than 6,000 years. So they all agree to that.

With some methods it is hard to give a "date" but millions and billions is the number they all agree on.

I have clearly missed your point – sorry, I'm tired and the wine tonight has been fine.

One dating method for the universe is using the cosmic background radiation giving one date, the measurement of the Hubble "constant" giving another - both around 13-14 billion years - the "agreed" date at the moment is 13.7 billion years.
Another is using the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram technique for globular clusters... we are getting some at 12 billion years for these objects, and they of course should be younger than the universe, so far so good.

So erm... I think this is shows the dating methods are agreeing with one another. We have not found ANYTHING in the universe older than the universe and everything pointer is showing older than 10,000 years.

I'm no wordsmith, and the wine tastes so fine right now - so please help me... how does "consilience" help me out or break my argument?

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1422. Comment #68491 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 9:45 am

But that is not inconsistent with the Bible account! According to the detail in Genesis 8:11, at least one tree (and presumably in fact, many trees) survived the flood...

Interesting point Mark. However, Genesis 7:23 "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground"
Also, the oldest bristle cone pines occur at an upper limit of 3354 metres. The flood covered everest, so Prometheus must have been under at least 5500 metres of water. That is a pressure of around 533 atmospheres, or about a ton per sq inch. It's just not going to survive. I briefly checked, but couldn't find any info, but assuming a fllod occurred and it survived, it should be recorded in its rings. That of course would not prove the flood (other climatic factors could be responsible), but absence of such a record would disprove the flood

Other Comments by BillySands

1423. Comment #68502 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 10:25 am

Billy, you committed a basic error by not completing the quote. Let me do that for you:

... upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth.

There is no mention of vegetation, which while you might suppose from the KJV's translation "substance" could be included, evidently from context is not counted as "living substance" in the sense you presume.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1424. Comment #68509 by epeeist on September 7, 2007 at 11:07 am

Comment #68474 by LeeC

I'm no wordsmith, and the wine tastes so fine right now - so please help me... how does "consilience" help me out or break my argument?

You have it exactly, namely that all the dating methods used are all independent, but agree with each other. While you have given astronomical ones, things like C14 and other radiometric methods, dendrochronology etc. have similar agreements.

While the YEC people attack individual dating methods they have difficulty with the fact that all the methods agree with each other.

No wine tonight, but a nice gin and tonic with Bombay Sapphire.

Other Comments by epeeist

1425. Comment #68510 by epeeist on September 7, 2007 at 11:15 am

Comment #68502 by Mark Taunton

Mark - please don't tell me you are going to claim that the flood was literally true. We have already been through this with devolved.

Other Comments by epeeist

1426. Comment #68527 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 12:41 pm

SRWB:

Thank you for your willingness to continue the discussion on this point, despite your initial discounting of its significance. I hope the following will be helpful.

One more time! You are absolutely correct that for a prophecy to be worth anything it must be clear and unambiguous; as you said "… the meaning of words and phrases is exactly what it comes down to". But therein lays part of the problem. A very cursory search of a half-dozen different Bibles has turned up three other words in the verse under contention (26:12); these are "put", "throw" and "cast". So we are far from unanimously settled upon "lay" as the operative verb. I would grant that "put" is similar to "lay", but then you would be forced to agree that "throw" and "cast" are more in line with what I have suggested. The point is that there have been too many versions of this story written, and passed down, that it is of little use as irrefutable evidence.

Firstly, I'd like to correct a misapprehension apparent in your last sentence above. There is only one known version of the prophecy, as originally written in Hebrew. So far as can be ascertained, this has been passed down intact from when Ezekiel first spoke the words: I mentioned in an earlier comment the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of an absence of significant corruption in the OT text, despite a long copying sequence (yes, a real example of "evidence of absence"!).

What you are actually observing, quite validly, is that the many available translations into English of the original text vary between themselves as to how exactly they render the sense of a particular word. None of them claims to be (or is) an authoritative translation, inspired by God, so people who do not read Hebrew appear to have a problem getting at the real intended meaning. However, help is at hand; by use of a concordance, it is possible to derive for oneself the actual Biblical meaning of an original word – that is, as determined from its uses in their contexts – by the simple (though in this instance somewhat laborious) process of looking at each place in the original text where it appears. (Exactly the process that the compilers of dictionaries such as the OED are obliged to perform.)

As a more up-to-date way to go about such a scan, programs like the free Online Bible can do the same job, listing all relevant passages for consideration in context, very quickly. As a summary to give at least a minimal impression of the spread of actual translations of it appearing in the KJV, the OLB reports for the particular word rendered as "lay" in Ezekiel 26:12 :-

AV-put 155, make 123, set 119, lay 64, appoint 19, give 11, set up 10, consider 8, turn 5, brought 4, ordain 3, place 3, take 3, shew 2, regard 2, mark 2, disposed 2, care 2, misc 48; 585

That last number 585 is the total number of occurrences. As I said, it would be laborious to go through every one, but logically if you need convincing about the exact sense, that is what you should do. Notice, by the way, that words such as "throw" and "cast" do not appear in the list. (Billy some while back proffered the cases of "dispose" as matching his proposed sense of "throw away". However, if you look at those two passages, you will see that the sense is not of that nature at all, but more like "arranged" or "configured" – it doesn't connect with "dispose of", as I think Billy had in mind.).

In summary on this particular point, from my own consideration of a significant sub-set of the 585 instances, I would say that the sense I previously indicated, of a deliberate or intentional (i.e. not random) placing, is quite consistent with the scriptural pattern of usage.

You make an interesting point about the ordering of events in chronological sequence, and how this is not always the manner in which Biblical writings are formatted. Doesn't this admitted lack of conventions and rules of scholarship by the ancients weaken your overall argument of factuality and unambiguous use of terms and words somewhat?

A pertinent question. However, note that it was not me who suggested a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship" in regard to the Bible as a document. There are straightforward ways in Hebrew to indicate a specific ordering of events, and they do occur quite frequently in the OT; Hebrew has words for "before", "after", "at that time", etc, etc. That Ezekiel's words in 26:12 do not include such terms, in relation to the five particular actions described, does not imply any vagueness generally in the things that can be expressed in a prophecy, just that the sequence between them is not considered of prime importance to mention in this case.

Again, I will not concede that this verse comes anywhere near to the fulfillment of a prediction. Tyre didn't fall to this attack and it was only some 250+ years later that a successful assault was carried out. So I am not disputing Alexander's attack, just your interpretation of it as having been prophesized by Ezekiel.

Given that according to various historical accounts, there was a change of king in Tyre around the time of Nebuchadrezzar's siege (which is itself documented from multiple secular sources), and that members of the Tyrian royal family are listed as living as exiles in Babylon, I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1427. Comment #68534 by J.C. Samuelson on September 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Mark,

With respect to your license, perhaps you could point me in the right direction as to who needs to be spoken to about obtaining a similar license and what to ask for so I can get the same evidence from my end without compromising security. Surely you can part with that kind of info via PM, couldn't you? In any case, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your paper when it's complete. As with Quetz, just drop me a PM when it's done and I'll send you my postal information. And thanks for the offer to pay the postage!

The Bible's claim is that it is inspired – i.e. the product of God's spirit (mind); that its words in their particular combination are not human-originated words, but come from – were chosen by – God, though individually they are words humans also use.

At the risk of provoking this digression on definitions of God to spin out of control, it seems to me that your answer doesn't really solve the problem. While there are a host of issues with your suggestion that God Himself is responsible for authorship, which have been central to all our debates here so far, I'll try to focus on just the issue of language. Thus, I'll assume for the sake of discussion that God did, in fact, write (or dictate) the words of scripture.

If the definitions attached to the words used originate with God and are somehow different from human definitions, then it's still impossible to claim knowledge of God's character. Since we do not have access to the divine perspective, we cannot know what God means when He describes Himself or His actions. Thus, scripture is rendered meaningless to humanity when it offers words that allegedly help define God. All definitions are therefore potentially true or not, and we can only guess as to what God means in a particular passage.

Consider "righteous" as just one example. This can mean acting in accord with a law (legally "righteous"), with moral principles (morally "righteous"), with perfect or near perfect execution (i.e., excellence), or simply an actuality (i.e., genuine). As I'm sure you'd agree, not all laws are moral, not all morals are expressed as laws, how well something is executed or how genuine it may be are matters of perspective. Alternatively, it can mean something entirely different. Perhaps, to God, "righteous" is more closely defined as having integrity (defined as "completeness," one of the definitions of "integrity"), or (to be absurd) thinking with the right hemisphere of the brain. Or consider "omnipotence." Does this refer to authority or influence? Does it mean virtually unlimited authority or influence, actually unlimited authority or influence, or some variation? Does omnipotence supercede omniscience, or vice versa, or are they equal?

Without the capability to understand what's being taught, how can we possibly claim to know anything about the subject? If God defines the words used in scripture in His own terms, and we do not have an insight into the divine mind, we simply cannot claim any understanding. Thus, all human assertions concerning what God is or may be, or how He may act, have equal potential to be right or wrong.

There's another problem with this as well. Some of the words used in scripture in English are merely the closest equivalents, not the exact translations, because (as we've discussed before) neither Hebrew nor Greek translate directly into English. This further obscures whatever meaning the original words may have had, regardless of which version we might refer to.

All of this is to say that, under your model, no one has any basis for criticizing anyone else's interpretation of scripture as it pertains to God Himself. In other words, Dawkins' interpretation of OT scripture has the same potential as yours to be right or wrong. You can no more say his characterization of God is incorrect than he can say the same of yours. My next question then becomes, of what possible use is scripture if we humans can't really know what it says?

But for men to arbitrarily describe him in their own words (some of which occur in the Bible), but using combinations of words that are not consistent with the biblical description, that is the problem.

All definitions given to various words by mankind are arbitrary. Your dictionary does not give absolute definitions, Mark. It only gives common usage at the time the dictionary was published. Furthermore, it matters little how consistently the words are used in the Bible if we do not know how to define them. In other words, a "biblical description" only has meaning to humans if humans arbitrarily decide which definitions fit the words.

As it is, translators are merely offering a "best guess" as to what the original human authors meant. By suggesting that only God knows what He meant by the words He used, you effectively nullify their work completely.

For example, no such rant as appears at the start of chapter 2 of "The God Delusion" can be found in, or matched to, any Biblical text.

Of course, Dawkins is using his own moral judgment to decide whether the God of the OT is just, unjust, petty, or what have you. Merely because the Bible says that God is always just does not mean that He must be just from a human perspective. After all, as you have argued, God defines His own terms. So perhaps that explains why we might view, say, God's command to kill the man picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36) as unjust, but from God's perspective perhaps this is just. Yet this still leaves us in the realm of guesswork, since the NT describes Jesus' disciples picking food on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5). God apparently believes in situational ethics, in spite of the biblical description of Him as immutable. To harmonize this, we might guess that God is above His own Law, since Jesus claims lordship of the Sabbath. But if He places Himself above the Law, then He is, by our definition, a tyrant, punishing everyone who breaks the Sabbath except those whom He happens to favor at the time. Then again, how can we know anything since God defines Himself and His actions in His own terms, and doesn't seem inclined to tell us what he really means?

Again, if the biblical characterization of God is made up of divinely defined words that we cannot know the meaning of, then what makes you think your interpretation is any better than Dawkins'?

...the word "jealous" in the Bible is consistently not a pejorative term, and that "proud" by contrast is pejorative, but is never used of God's attitude. In Biblical usage, "jealousy" is not the same as "envy" (as modern usage of the former term has it), but a positive concern for correct relationships to be maintained.

Again, this is a human judgment, not God's, as you have so helpfully pointed out. However, you're at least incorrect concerning the Hebrew root word for jealous, qana'. This is Strong's Number 07065, and means the following:

to envy, be jealous, be envious, be zealous
(Piel)
to be jealous of
to be envious of
to be zealous for
to excite to jealous anger
(Hiphil) to provoke to jealous anger, cause jealousy

You might be tempted to suggest that this is only the root word, and that qanna' is the more appropriate word for some of the better known verses such as Ex. 20:5, 34:14 or Deut. 4:24, 5:9 and 6:15. Yet the only known definition is the word 'jealous' itself. In other words, jealous means jealous (give it any meaning you like, I suppose). Furthermore, the root word is used in the context of describing God's jealousy in 1 Ki. 14:22, Ps. 78:58, Ez. 39:25, Joe. 2:18, and Zech. 1:14 & 8:2. So, the fact of the matter is that God is biblically described as envious, jealous, zealous, and whatever other meaning you might find to attach to it. Even the context of the better known verses gives a clue that God gets jealous (the pejorative term, as you put it), because He's jealous of other gods, whoever they may be. It's merely your prejudice for a particular image of God that gives preference to the idea that jealousy doesn't really mean jealousy as we usually understand it.

To return to the point, if God defines jealousy in His own way, the Bible is of little to no help in understanding what He means. How can we be assured that the Hebrews define the word correctly?

You actually illustrate my point nicely in almost the next phrase:

...the same word is applicable to a man's valid desire for his wife that she remain uniquely his, and not engage in adulterous activity with someone else.

Is this concern for the "right" relationship, or anger and pain over rejection or envy? Jealousy, as humans understand it, is a purely selfish emotion, not a philanthropic concern for your spouse's well-being or that he/she remain with you for his/her sake. It's for one's own sake that one gets jealous. There are countless examples of jealous spouses whose marriages could hardly be described as healthy or "right." Again, this is a human concept, and we cannot know that this has any bearing on a divine entity we don't (or can't) understand.

The bottom line is that we're still in the same place you left us. If God defines His own terms, and it's wrong for humans to impose their defintions on them (as you complain of concerning Dawkins), then we cannot know anything about Him. Might I suggest that what you object to isn't really Dawkins' imposition of human-relative terms on God, but that those terms conflict with your own?

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to. We are, painfully, limited by our own human inclinations and traditions in our response to that message: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" (1 Cor 2:14). Nonetheless those who are prepared to consider it seriously find - as I do, continually - that the more one submits oneself to the principles it teaches, being willing to accept it for what it claims to be, the more it substantiates itself as being true, and the more the evidence of this world of ours and its present condition, both in the large and in very small details, is found to match with precision both the Bible's overall characterisation of things, and its many individual predictions.

Pardon me for asking, but are you actually suggesting that an objective reader could not reach an opposite conclusion? Are you actually questioning the seriousness - and perhaps the integrity - of those of us who have studied the Bible and yet do not believe? If so, I'd really like an explanation for my own deconversion, especially considering the fact that it was through my very attempt to objectively confirm the Bible that I came to skepticism. I was seeking to emulate Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, and 1 Peter 3:15. Was my seriousness misplaced? Should I have been less demanding of the text? Was I somehow less honest or serious than you?

Given that according to various historical accounts, there was a change of king in Tyre around the time of Nebuchadrezzar's siege (which is itself documented from multiple secular sources), and that members of the Tyrian royal family are listed as living as exiles in Babylon, I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!

Hold on there. Are you saying now that Tyre fell to Nebuchadnezzar, or are you merely referring to its political capitulation?

Lee,

Actually, I did find God right here on RD.net. Quetzalcoatl, dispenser of teas and ruler of laser-headed falcons. ;)

Erm... probably 50% those posts (and about 75% of the rubbish written) is from me... sorry.

Please don't be sorry. I rather enjoy your posts, and don't consider them rubbish at all. It just takes awhile to read them. ;)

Keep up the good work!

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1428. Comment #68544 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 2:25 pm

JCS (1581):

As usual, you write thoughtfully, such that I feel obliged to respond. Forgive me for not doing so immediately, but I owe Lee an answer I promised him earlier, and I would also like to pick up on a comment by SRWB. However, briefly, in regard to a central issue in your comment (1581) - how can we can come to a valid definition of any word in a message from an omnipotent God whose understanding so far exceeds our own? - I ask you to consider by way of example my previous comment to SRWB (1580) on getting to the meaning of the Hebrew word translated "lay" in Ezekiel 26:12. The approach is straightforward, is based on only the relevant text (independent of any extra-biblical material), and is consistent with examples in the Bible itself of how to gain understanding of God's words as they are presented in Scripture.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1429. Comment #68546 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 2:41 pm

JCS - on the satellite photo licence question, I will send you a PM shortly. Be aware however, that it is not exactly cheap to get hold of. The sum I paid probably hurt my pocket less than it would yours, since the price is quoted in US dollars, and the pound is very strong against the dollar these days. Even so, it was a purchase I made only after weighing the matter carefully. The impact of the particular detail I had seen on the old Google Maps view, and keep hinting at here (annoyingly to you all, I'm sure!), was sufficient in itself to persuade me to go ahead.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1430. Comment #68560 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 3:36 pm

There is only one known version of the prophecy, as originally written in Hebrew. So far as can be ascertained, this has been passed down intact from when Ezekiel first spoke the words

We are in agreement to a point – IF this "prophecy" was indeed made (in Hebrew) then that would be the definitive version. But can we be sure that it was passed down intact? How can we even be sure that it was copied down correctly? Unfortunately, there is no way of proving it either way.

However, the "prophecy" is also very much about interpretation of one word – "lay". You suggest it unerringly refers to the construction of a causeway; I have difficulty buying that argument, given the complete lack of supporting detail and evidence.

However, note that it was not me who suggested a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship" in regard to the Bible as a document.

You're correct – those are my words, but I was simply construing your last comments of post 1540, "What would be necessary to give it any force, however, is to show that in all relevant Biblical contexts describing a series of (related) events, the mention of those events in the text is always in strict chronological sequence. And I believe you would fail to do that, as I can think of a number of counterexamples…". I interpreted this as a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship". Perhaps that is not what you meant.

I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!

To echo JC, did Tyre fall to Nebuchadnezzar or not? If it did fall, was it as a result of the causeway which wouldn't be built for another 250 years or so?

Other Comments by SRWB

1431. Comment #68562 by Goldy on September 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Mark, do you eat pork?

Other Comments by Goldy

1432. Comment #68571 by Mark Taunton on September 7, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Last comment from me tonight...

Goldy:

Yes I do, though it's not my favourite meat. Why? Because there is no Biblical reason for me to avoid it: I am not Jewish, nor have I committed myself to keep the original covenant Yahweh made with the nation of Israel, under which pig meat is to be considered unclean and not to be eaten. See Leviticus 11:1-8, noting how it is a law to be taught specifically to the children of Israel. It is therefore not binding upon me (by ethnic classification, a Gentile), as the NT makes perfectly clear (Acts 15, particularly vv 19-20).

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1433. Comment #68578 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Hi epeeist,

Mark - please don't tell me you are going to claim that the flood was literally true. We have already been through this with devolved.

Yep… read it for yourself in this summary.

Post 1393.
Question: How can Noah and the flood be understood to have happened as described in the bible?

Other Comments by LeeC

1434. Comment #68622 by epeeist on September 8, 2007 at 12:00 am

Comment #68578 by LeeC

Mark - please don't tell me you are going to claim that the flood was literally true. We have already been through this with devolved.

Yep… read it for yourself in this summary.

Groan - try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. This is an abbreviated list of points that will need to be answered. There are more, you can see one or two of them that I have raised with devolved.

Other Comments by epeeist

1435. Comment #68646 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 2:19 am

Thanks Epeeist.

It's a problem when you believe in something so strongly; you have to bend to facts to fit the theory. Far better to write the theory to match the observations I think.

Thanks for the link, it could come in very handy.

I found this link on my travels:-
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm

Loads of articles against the biblical global flood. It is written by a Christian chap (proving you do not have to be an atheist to think the flood described in the bible is "wrong").

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1436. Comment #68648 by Goldy on September 8, 2007 at 2:21 am

It is therefore not binding upon me (by ethnic classification, a Gentile), as the NT makes perfectly clear (Acts 15, particularly vv 19-20).

Hmmmm. I read what you suggested - sounds like a marketing ploy to me rather than a religious act. Ah, well. Does seem to me to be odd that you worship a god that sees you as an outsider. Almost sounds like when push comes to shove he'd not care. You don't follow his covenants or laws, things which, had I been a god, I'd rather like my followers to, errrr, follow.
Ah, well, I'm sure there's a technicality you'll quote me.
Incidently, one of my friends was a Christadelphian. Never realised, of course, though he did seem a bit annoyed at my anti-religiosity at times. Nice feller, he was.

Other Comments by Goldy

1437. Comment #68651 by Goldy on September 8, 2007 at 2:33 am

Not sure about the Biblical flood, but the post glacial flooding of about 8000 years ago is interesting in what it left behind (of course, out of our time zone by 2000 years...)
"Eden in the East" by Stephen Oppenheimer is illuminating, well, at least to me. Seems the Bible writers did a fair amount of cribbing and the stories in it may hvae originated even further east than previously thought, meybe as far east as the Sunda Shelf twixt Oz and PNG.

Other Comments by Goldy

1438. Comment #68652 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 2:34 am

sounds like a marketing ploy to me rather than a religious act

Well, it is difficult to sell your new religion to the Roman's etc if you tell them that they need to cut the top off your willy first to join the club - It does not take a marketing genius to think, maybe we should change this a little bit - God won't mind.

Summarised here in Lego:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/the_great_penis_debate/ac15_01.html

Funny how Jesus didn't say anything about this – merely men debating whether to cut the top off their willies.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1439. Comment #68653 by Goldy on September 8, 2007 at 2:37 am

From what I read and saw, once JC was safely in the ground (or sky, depending on viewpoint) the whole movement left the confines of the ben Joseph clan in the hands of a rather zealous man (Paul, was it...) who saw a golden opportunity...
However, far be it for me to imply that some of God's words were linked to a scam by men...

Other Comments by Goldy

1440. Comment #68658 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 3:01 am

Hi JC,

Please don't be sorry. I rather enjoy your posts, and don't consider them rubbish at all. It just takes awhile to read them. ;)

Keep up the good work!

Thanks... I will try then – I still prefer reading others than writing them – it is hard work to write and I do not learn anything. When I read others I learn something new...

However next I start on a new project at work so will not have as much time on my hands, the last few weeks I've be doing rather little (just trying to look busy) - hence the long posts here.

This should mean I will be more focused on my replies - and there will be less of them. They will still probably be long though…

Cheers

All praise Quetzalcoatl

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1441. Comment #68670 by BillySands on September 8, 2007 at 4:06 am

Too much to catch up with at the o, but briefly,

Billy, you committed a basic error by not completing the quote. Let me do that for you:


... upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth.
There is no mention of vegetation, which while you might suppose from the KJV's translation "substance" could be included, evidently from context is not counted as "living substance" in the sense you presume.

No basic error here Mark, I am aware what the rest says. It is just giving examples. Pterodactyls are not specifically mentioned either. By your logic, that would mean they are not living substances. I could just have easily given you Gen 6:17"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish..
I can guess your response, I am prepared :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1442. Comment #68738 by BillySands on September 8, 2007 at 11:18 am

Mark, lets look a bit more at Ezekiel 26:12 in context:

"For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army. 8 "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you. 9 "The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached. 11 "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground. 12 "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water." NASB

This is describing events relating to Nebuchadnezzar as outlined in verse 7. It is telling of the comming destruction by the Babylonians. verse 12 is clearly linked temporally to this event, therefore the casting of buildings into the sea relates to this period, not that of Alexander. It is reasonable to assume that lay means to throw in an act of destruction, not construction. Furthermore, if we read on, it talks about reducing tyre to a bare rock (v14). Clearly the destruction refers to the Island, which never happened

Other Comments by BillySands

1443. Comment #68751 by Theo on September 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Hi guys,

its been a long time (i almost forgot my password). I am currently sleep deprived and virtually drowning in work. It seems as though i will not be able to debate until February (if I'm still alive!)so you guys take care and hopefully if by that time this thread is still alive, i will charge into it. bye.

Other Comments by Theo

1444. Comment #68772 by Mark Taunton on September 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm

SRWB (re your comment 1574):

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God,...

The quote above is another of those fascinating ideas that Christians would have us accept as true. In effect, we are expected to believe that some 2000 years ago God, as his own son, lived and walked among us for 30 odd years.

When I read what you said above - "God, as his own son, …" - I winced. I regret that you have been confused on the issue you raise there. Your confusion is not of your own making, but caused by something that the Bible itself in fact predicts, namely the corruption of the original gospel into a different "gospel" that is actually false and ineffective.

I'm sorry for what may seem like a sudden jump into - from your perspective, probably - obscure theological detail. Nonetheless, it is pertinent here. I also apologise in advance for seemingly making a lot out of an apparently tiny nuance of your phrasing. But I need to do so, to stress the difference between the Christadelphian approach to the Bible and that of most other denominations. Please understand that present-day "Christianity" in all its complexity should not be just lumped together under a single heading, neatly labelled; there is a wide spectrum, and Christadelphians occupy a very narrow, and very distinct, part of it.

Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" comments in passing on the same general idea that you referred to by the phrase "God, as his own son", as a concept taught by Christians. (I could find you the reference if you want it.) Elsewhere, he also acknowledges the breadth of the diversity within Christianity, though he doesn't mention Christadelphians specifically. Despite this, he still ends up disregarding the differences, and classifying all "Christians" together, just as at the higher level he simplifies things by classifying all religion, under whatever name, as effectively the same anyway, preferably to be swept away entirely. I find this approach to be utterly unscientific in character - quite un-Linnaean, indeed. That is especially surprising, given Dawkins' professorial title at Oxford including the word "science", and his own background in zoology, in which taxonomy is a fundamental theme. Imagine insisting that all animals are effectively the same kind of thing, so we needn't worry about difference; that doesn't make it any easier to get milk out of a crocodile. But effectively lumping me in with Christians whose notions of who and what Jesus is and God is are totally opposed to my own, and then supposing that in dismissing their idea of God – one who himself died on the cross - he has also killed mine, is just that kind of mistake. (For those inclined to immediately mock this distinction as some kind of storm in a teacup, and raise "emperor's tailor" arguments, please don't bother: I've heard them before.)

Now RD argues that it's not worth his time worrying about the differences, since (he asserts, like most contributors on this site) that all religion is bunk anyway. But there are two problems there: firstly, he is at root, though subtly, presuming the truth of his conclusion in part of his argument leading to it (something he does multiple times in the book despite criticising others for that same error); secondly, he is in effect uncaring that he might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He also fails to consider that his understandable difficulties over how to respond to the very many differing opinions held by religious people would be scaled down hugely if he simply concerned himself with the source texts, which are far fewer in number, and hence much easier to analyse, categorise and reason about (or against). Deal with the Bible, the Koran and a few eastern religious source documents, and you've covered well over 90% of the range of "religion", in respect of the number of adherents and the books they refer to. But regrettably, for all he condemns it, RD spends precious few pages of his book actually considering the Bible text in any detail; and of the Koran or other claimed sacred books, hardly more than a few words. (Of course, given Salman Rushdie's experience, one can understand his reluctance to go far in print in condemning the deity of the Moslems, compared to the verbal savagery he freely unleashes against Yahweh, the God of Israel!) I was very surprised when I myself read the book. For all the coverage claiming that he effectively proves in it that the God of the Bible, or any other, is mere human invention, in fact his coverage of Bible teaching about its God is remarkably brief and superficial.

But enough about "TGD" - I could spend all day discussing its faults. Let me get back to the particular point here.

My beliefs about Jesus are radically different from most who call themselves Christians, precisely because of how I view the Bible and its authority, relative to any other claimed source of knowledge about God. In respect of the phrase you used – "God, as his own son", be aware that it is a direct reflection of Trinitarian ideas, but not of the Bible text itself. The Bible never once speaks about God, as "his own son", or anything with that import. Nor does it anywhere contain Trinitarian terms such as "trinity", "God the son", "God the holy spirit", "co-equal", "co-eternal", "three in one", "consubstantial", etc, etc. Yes, the phrase "God the father" occurs in the text multiple times, but the other two components of the triune God most "Christians" worship never get a look-in! I could go on into more detail, but for now let me simply say that if you want to take the Bible as it comes, without adding words to it, the description of Jesus it gives us includes both that he is a man, and that he is the son of God, but never that he is in any a sense a "God-man" in the commonly-held notion, such as "God, as his own son" implies. I've probably said enough for the moment on this aspect.

Why do I make such fuss about this, quibbling (as some might characterise it) about what is "merely" some "detail" of Christian teaching? It's precisely because it highlights the problem I have in trying to convince people to take the Bible seriously, and simultaneously – though perhaps surprisingly to some - gives support to my claim about the Bible's truth, especially with regard to prophecy.

On the first point, the difficulty is that most adults who have never previously read the Bible come to it with a huge amount of mental baggage already in place, whatever their religious (or non-religious) background, because of the strength of influence mainstream Christian teaching has had on global (and particularly western) culture over the past centuries. At root, it is essential to distinguish "mainstream Christian" teaching from the Bible's teaching. They are emphatically not the same thing, the former having diverged from the latter very early on, adopting over time vast swathes of pagan Greek philosophy and language. So the comments atheists make, thinking that what they know of "Christian" ideas and reasoning matches my own beliefs and logic, and is "just what the Bible says", frequently miss the mark by a great distance. So much so, that I am left struggling: how can I persuade anyone to set aside their prejudices from the concepts they have already absorbed (despite not believing them to be true), so that they can take the Bible alone as a standalone text, and consider what it actually says, when viewed as an independent whole?

On the positive side as I see it (from a situation that seems negative), the fact of Christendom having diverged so far from its origins is a substantial confirmation of the truth of the Bible. What the Jews had done and continued to do in the time of Jesus (and he condemns), by substituting their own ideas for the teaching of Moses and the prophets, and adding layers of tradition on top of even what parts of God's law were still acknowledged, later Christians who did not hold tightly to the words of scripture were also prone to do. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament repeatedly spell out warnings on this basic point, continuing the work of the OT prophets. Further, Peter, Paul and others explicitly predict the decay of the church, with false teaching increasingly coming in, and its members corrupted to a state "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". This pattern, though having specific application to these cases, is universal, reflecting innate human inclination – as the Bible documents it in detail - to deviate from what God has said, because of the physical desires that arise within, and our preference to please ourselves, and disregard authority whenever it suit us to.

At this point, I know that Billy and JCS (as former Christians) may well feel their hackles rising, although they both have left all that religion stuff behind. Because of my determination to understand the Bible in its own terms alone, the position I hold in some areas is quite distinct from the views they (or at least Billy, JCS has not been so explicit) used to hold as Christians. In consequence they are likely to seek to dismiss it even within a religious context they no longer associate with. For example, it was clear from a remark of Billy's some time back, that while he no longer believes in any God, he is sure that the Bible teaching about God describes the Trinitarian one he used to worship, and not the rather different God in which I believe. (I think that was the particular issue; certainly his comment was of that sort, if not on the precise point.) Thus strangely, even here, in a consciously anti-Christian, anti-religious context, I continue to experience the same problems I encounter when discussing the Bible with avowedly religious people.

He also made regular appearances to other assorted characters throughout the preceding centuries in various guises, like burning bushes, etc. The strange thing is that since then, he has not made a lengthy visit or even just a pop in for coffee to us "post Biblical types" (nicely put newatheist!).

Why not? Are we not as worthy as the erstwhile denizens of the middle east?

Along the same lines as I have been discussing above, I think it worth your while trying to get a picture of how the Bible actually describes human history (over about 6,000 years, in the terms it presents), and the proportion of that time in which specific explicit revelations by God were given, as it documents them. The results will surprise you: you used the word "regular", but in fact "very infrequent" would be a more appropriate term.

Certainly the Bible describes particular times when God is reported to intervene in the world and have close dealings with particular individuals and groups. But in the overall scheme of things that was very much the exception, not the norm. For example, after the book of Genesis records God's early conversations with Adam and Eve, and in the next generation, with Cain, there is no specific mention of a new direct communication with any human being until the time of Noah, well over 1,000 years later. Thus it is of no surprise to me that there are no inspired prophets and apostles today, receiving revelation from God and communicating it to humanity. That last happened when first John the Baptist, then Jesus, and latterly the early disciples, preached and recorded the gospel accounts and associated writings, over a mere 40 years or so. Several prophetic passages in both OT and NT describe the end of the era of Jewish national existence, using language making clear that prophecies, visions and revelations would cease also, as indeed they did after John wrote down the book of Revelation which completed the Bible.

However, that does not mean that God is not at work. The book of Daniel gives particular insight into an issue occasionally mentioned elsewhere in the Bible: that angels, usually unseen (or at least, unrecognised) by men, are active in the affairs of this world. They are said to serve God's purposes in many ways, but exerting an influence in some way over political developments, in relation to God's long-term purpose, is a feature identified in Daniel 10. By such means, we are given to understand, God "removes kings and sets up kings", as Daniel also records (2:21). And ultimately, it is his purpose to set up one king who will never be removed, because he perfectly and of his own will chose to obey God completely, even to the point of giving his life. On account of that faithfulness in the past, Jesus was declared to be the Christ, that is, the anointed, chosen one, who is to become king in due course, when he returns.

Please note, the Bible is not here talking about "popping in for coffee". Rather it says that he will be given rulership over the planet, not in some invisible spiritual sense, but in a direct physical and practical manner. Though you now doubtless mock at such an idea, the Bible is clear there will be no mistaking God's involvement at that time, when the sudden and total change in the state of this world is triggered by the return of Jesus, in power and glory, and the establishment of his kingdom, beginning in Jerusalem, and ultimately taking over the whole earth. Daniel 2 is just one example passage (out of a very large number) that speaks of this utter transformation in the state of the world: see verse 44 for a brief summary of what is predicted to happen.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1445. Comment #68777 by Mark Taunton on September 8, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Billy, though you say you can guess my response, I will (predictably?) give it anyway. I disagree with your argument, for the following reason. Pterodactyls (if they were still around at the time of the flood) would be classed among the "fowls of heaven", i.e. creatures with wings which fly in the sky (Genesis 1:20,21). Note that this term, as it is used in the Bible, covers more than just birds: it is applied to insects, for example. Thus (on my part trying to guess your response :-) your potential complaint that pterodactyls weren't fowls (birds) would be irrelevant, since the Hebrew word is clearly not so specific...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1446. Comment #68805 by Goldy on September 8, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Thus it is of no surprise to me that there are no inspired prophets and apostles today, receiving revelation from God and communicating it to humanity. That last happened when first John the Baptist, then Jesus, and latterly the early disciples

Muslims would argue this point (along with Mormons and other strange folk). Can you prove that there were no other prophets or is this just because the Bible stops - after millenia of scribbling (and a wee bit of cribbing ;-)) it stops about 2000 years ago and has not been added to and if anyone raises their heads above the parapet, they are denounced most vocally (bit like JC was, funnily enough) by those that calim to know God's will. This raises some suspicions with me.
Regarding your slavish adherence to the Bible, I am in awe. I read a few bits - some really don't make sense, some bits are interesting adn some sound like they speak for their time and had they had current knowledge, they would have been written differently. Just for me, who were the "sons of gods" who married the "daughters of men"? Who was Cain afraid of that he needed a mark to protect him (I am assuming Adam and Even knew him quite well and Abel was not really in a position to harm him anymore). Why did all animals have to die in the Flood because of Man's sins? Would the same have happened if flies had sinned badly? Why is everything in real life contradictory to what is stated in the Bible (I mean things like radiation dating, lack of global flooding, histories that can be gleaned from DNA studies - and don't tell me they are all wrong - you expect us to believe you and the least you can do is not dismiss us out of hand with Bibical texts).
I would read the Bible as it is - I have no gnosis so can only do so. It is contradictory to me and reading it like you do only makes me more skeptical of its message.

Other Comments by Goldy

1447. Comment #68865 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 1:32 am

Goldy:
I would like to respond to your questions, as I would like to respond to many of the questions posed here (though leaving aside the most obviously flippant ones). As I have said before, I cannot realistically do that completely, for lack of time. My focus is therefore primarily kept on the most fundamental issues, as identified in the original flyer for my talk that appears on the top of this page. I do try to pick up other issues as occasion permits, but at root the key thing I seek to do in this forum - appropriately given this thread's origins, I believe - is to demonstrate, with the Bible as my foundation, that indeed there is a God, its author, who is involved in this world, and who has given us through that book many ways to prove his reality, if we are willing to seek for it. By the way, no private special "gnosis" is required - only a willingness to apply oneself to the enquiry; all we need is set out in the text.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1448. Comment #68867 by LeeC on September 9, 2007 at 1:33 am

Hi Theo,

its been a long time (i almost forgot my password). I am currently sleep deprived and virtually drowning in work. It seems as though i will not be able to debate until February (if I'm still alive!)so you guys take care and hopefully if by that time this thread is still alive, i will charge into it.

February!!!! Oh well, we will probably still be here - plenty of prophecies to keep us going.

Take care.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1449. Comment #68870 by LeeC on September 9, 2007 at 1:44 am

Hi Mark,

Regarding post 1601

I'm amazed at how many responses you are able to do - and I'm grateful for it. I've learnt a lot from this thread - and now can even quote stuff from the bible when I get caught in a debate (it happens).

Just this morning I was talking to my father about the bible - funny eh? (Don't think though you would have agreed to what I said, but I was still talking about the bible and I told my father to read it as well.)

So thank you for the time you put in here.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1450. Comment #68903 by BillySands on September 9, 2007 at 4:02 am

Hi Mark, I hope you didn't think I meant predictable in a bad way. You actually did not follow the standard Christian response here, which is good. One of the things i like about having you here is that you do genuinely make me have to be thorough. Any way, the word you refer to in Gen 1:20 is "uwph", defined in strongs thus: from uwph; a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively bird, that flieth, flying, fowl. The word is clearly associated with named birds in lev. 11:13. In Lev 17:13, the word appears again associated with fowl that contain blood (rules out insects etc arguing haemolymph is blood in this context would be strange). However, in lev11:20 we have the word used to convey something that creeps on all fours. These cant be insects, these creep on all sixes and there is a specific word for bat "atalleph". It is possible that to the zoologically ignorant though, that a bat is just a funny bird. It looks like the hebrew is far from conclusive yet again.

Do you agree though that the other verse I quote refers to all living things? I presume in your view, sea creatures died too, but they are not specifically mentioned, then we have the problem of pressure and the likelyhood a tree would survive. I find it telling it was an olive leaf the bird found. Not an elm, a eucalyptus, bambooshoot or mahogany leaf.

Perhaps